What Is a Neo-Con?
ryd...@yahoo.com
I'm not saying it is bad or good. Just looking for a useful definition.
Thanks,
Ryd
Tim Farrow
toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional
morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign
policy of America as well.
It's bad
<ryd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:21286b3e.04060...@posting.google.com...
demo<RAT
philip
Neoconservatism refers to the political goals and ideology of the "new
conservatives" in the United States, characterized by hawkish views on
foreign policy and a lesser emphasis on social issues and minimal government
than other strains of American conservatism. The "newness" refers either to
being new to American conservatism (often coming from liberal or socialist
backgrounds) or to being part of a "new wave" of conservative thought and
political organization. In both meanings the term is sometimes used
pejoratively.
More specifically, the term refers to journalists, pundits, policy analysts,
and institutions affiliated with policy think tanks such as the American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Project for the New American Century
(PNAC) and periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard. The
neoconservatives, often dubbed the neocons by supporters and critics alike,
are credited with (or blamed for) influencing U.S. foreign policy,
especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and George
W. Bush (2001-present).
The term neoconservative is somewhat controversial, with many to whom the
label is applied rejecting it. It has become increasingly popular in recent
years, to the point where many say it is becoming overused and lacking any
coherent definition, especially since many so-called neoconservatives
vehemently disagree with one another on major issues.
<ryd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:21286b3e.04060...@posting.google.com...
demo<RAT
VOTERS took RATS out of power and ELECTED every neo-con
Rev. 11D Meow!
"Tim Farrow" <tfa...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:29Jvc.4720$y9....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
bvoiced
ryd...@yahoo.com (ryd...@yahoo.com) wrote:
Usually they are young and politically unsophisticated. Some have
graduated from high school but that's about it.
dino
wrote:
A Neo-con believes in bigger government, larger deficit, and fewer
states rights. Big Business is good with no regulation and little
taxation. Regulation of morals of others (not themselves) by
government mandate.
Posted by the Rubber Dino.
Charlie Wolf
wrote:
>Anyone have a good definition for a neo-con?
Another useless label that liberals use when they have nothing but
lies and propoganda...
Sorta like homo-phobe.
Regards,
B12334567
link...
http://www.azure.org.il/8-weinstein.html
to wit:
Rise of the Judeo-Cons
Kenneth R.Weinstein
After five decades of feverish intellectual and political activity, Jewish
conservatives have finally gained recognition from the academy. On April 15-16
of this year, a conference entitled "The History of American Jewish Political
Conservatism" was convened in Washington under the direction of Professor
Murray Friedman of Temple University and in conjunction with The Feinstein
Center for American Jewish History and AmericanUniversity's Department of
Jewish Studies.
The central message of the conference was that American Jews, despite a
well-deserved reputation for being overwhelmingly liberal, have also
contributed substantially to the intellectual underpinnings of political
conservatism. From the birth of modern American conservatism in the early 1950s
through the culture wars of the 1990s, Jewish intellectuals have played a key
role in virtually every major development. Among the twenty-five presenters and
panelists who drove this point home were a number of prominent scholars,
including the reigning dean of American intellectual history, John Diggins; the
leading intellectual historian of American conservatism, George Nash; and the
leading historian of American Jewry, Jonathan Sarna. In addition, several
individuals who were themselves key players in the history of conservatism in
the United States offered their perspectives, including Midge Decter, an author
and senior figure in the neo-conservative movement; Elliott Abrams, a policy
intellectual who served as a high-ranking State Department official in the
Reagan Administration; and Charles Krauthammer, the Pulitzer Prize-winning
columnist for the Washington Post.
Yet there was a more interesting message which emerged from the conference:
That of the marked cultural shift which has taken place among Jewish
conservatives in recent decades. Whereas Jewish intellectuals involved in the
founding of the modern American conservative movement in the early 1950s were
only nominally Jewish, the neo-conservatives who came to the fore two decades
later could rightly be described as Jewish nationalists-Jews with an open
affiliation with the Jewish people and with Zionism. This heightened Jewish
connection, however, paled in comparison with that of the generation which has
emerged in the 1980s and 1990s. The latter derive their worldview not only from
an attachment to Jewish nationhood, but also from an interest in the Jewish
religious tradition. This increasingly conservative character of Jewish
conservatism, if it continues, has the potential not only to reshape the
politics of the American Jewish community, but also to enrich political
conservatism in the United States, as well as in other countries where
conservative movements have for years been seeking to forge a new agenda
following the end of the Cold War and the apparent victory of free-market
ideas.
The wall separating the political views of the early Jewish conservatives from
Jewish nationalism and tradition was described at the conference by George Nash
in a paper on the early days of the National Review, the magazine that laid the
foundations for an intellectually respectable American conservatism by
providing a platform that forged the now familiar front uniting
anti-Communists, economic liberals and cultural traditionalists. Seven members
of the magazine's inner circle-Frank Chodorov, Marvin Liebman, Eugene Lyons,
Frank Meyer, Morrie Ryskind, William Schlamm and Ralph de Toledano-were Jewish
ex-student radicals who sought to defend the individual against the state,
whether from the full-fledged totalitarianism of Soviet Communism or from the
soft despotism they saw as endemic to the welfare state. Though Chodorov and
Meyer began as libertarians and the other members of this group as
anti-Communists, they increasingly came to see religious tradition as the
bulwark of Western civilization's defense against tyranny. Yet these Jews did
not consider Judaism to be a religious tradition on which the West could build;
for the most part, argues Nash, they considered Judaism to be a ritual-based
religion incapable of providing a moral antidote to the excesses of
Enlightenment rationalism. Thus, rather than embrace the faith of their
ancestors, those who turned to religion looked to that of their Christian
comrades. Under the spiritual guidance of the Review's publisher, William F.
Buckley, Jr., Liebman and Meyer were actually baptized as Catholics, while
Schlamm was buried in a Catholic ceremony. De Toledano, too, was drawn to
Catholicism, though he stopped short of conversion out of respect for his
Sephardi forebears who had suffered at the hands of the Inquisition. Indeed,
Chodorov, who attended church regularly though did not convert, summed up the
feelings that most of them shared when he opened his essay, "How a Jew Came to
God: An Intellectual Experience," with the proclamation: "I am a Jew. Not that
anyone cares about it, least of all myself."
In the 1960s and 1970s, American Jewish conservatives came to be recognized as
a movement distinct from Christian-American conservatism through the vehicle of
what became the "neo-conservative" movement, which sprang up around a pair of
magazines edited by gifted Jewish ex-radicals from New York: Irving Kristol's
The Public Interest and Norman Podhoretz's Commentary. These publications
shaped a generation of intellectuals disenamored with the New Left by applying
scholarly expertise and a critical eye to America's foreign policy, welfare
state and cultural institutions. The community of writers which formed around
Commentary, including leading non-Jewish figures such as Jeane Kirkpatrick,
assumed key roles in the Reagan Administration's effort to roll back Soviet
expansionism, while the community that crystallized around The Public Interest
guided the administration's policies in critical domestic areas such as tax
reduction, welfare reform and education.
Unlike their predecessors at the National Review, the neo-cons were for the
most part Jewish nationalists, who proudly identified with the aspirations of
the State of Israel, as well as with Jews suffering oppression behind the Iron
Curtain. Offering what she called her "memoirs" at the conference, Midge
Decter, a central contributor to Commentary and wife of Norman Podhoretz,
proclaimed that "Zionism was bred in my bones," that Israel "was spoken of day
and night" in her home, and that her "only avowed intention as a teenager was
to die on the barricades in Palestine." Moreover, she cited her disgust with
Marxist and New Left antipathy towards Israel as an important factor in
distancing her and Podhoretz from the "radical shenanigans" which drew so many
of their peers among New York's literary elite. Nevertheless, despite her deep
disapproval of what she called the liberal tendency to try to "escape forever
from God's seemingly difficult and peculiar decrees," Decter and her
neo-conservative colleagues never made Jewish tradition a central concern-a
fact she emphasized by noting that she and her husband did not even join a
synagogue until recently.
It is only in the last generation, during the 1980s and 1990s, that prominent
Jewish conservatives have increasingly come to view their politics as a natural
outgrowth of their dedication to Jewish tradition. Elliott Abrams, one of the
leading figures in this group and a central speaker at the conference, has been
a symbol of this transformation. Like Decter and Podhoretz, he was repelled by
the Left in the 1970s largely because of its support for "liberation" movements
like the PLO, then the leading practitioner of international terrorism; it was
his views on foreign policy that led President Reagan to appoint him as
Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. In
recent years, he has turned his attention to religious and cultural issues, and
now heads the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington. Abrams created a
stir in 1997 with the publication of Faith or Fear: How Jews Can Survive in a
Christian America, in which he argued that a return to traditional Jewish
practice is the best answer to the Jewish "continuity" crisis and the bog of
moral relativism which has come to characterize so much of liberal Jewish
thought. Particularly controversial were his claims that American Jews must
abandon their traditional hostility to religion in public life, and that they
must build an alliance with like-minded Christians.
Other Jewish conservatives have also become well known for championing Judaism.
Among the most successful American radio talk-show hosts and commentators are a
number of Jewish political conservatives, including Dennis Prager, Laura
Schlessinger and Michael Medved, all of whom openly connect the moral and
religious themes of their general-audience programs to their own personal
relationship with the Jewish religious tradition. Prager has even co-authored
two books on Judaism (with Orthodox Rabbi Joseph Telushkin) aimed at broad
audiences unfamiliar with Jewish history and sources. Likewise, Wendy Shalit's
1999 book, A Return to Modesty, compared traditional Jewish principles such as
modesty and chastity with what she views as the destructiveness of sexual
liberation. And Lisa Schiffren, who penned Vice President Dan Quayle's "Murphy
Brown" speech criticizing the glorification of single-parent families by
American television, spoke at the conference about how her decision "to
affiliate as a Jew and a more serious Jew" was "parallel" to her political
conservatism. She called on Jewish conservatives to rely on their own tradition
in proposing remedies to cultural problems in American life.
Perhaps the clearest indication that American Jewish conservatives have come
full circle can be seen in Buckley's National Review, where senior editor David
Klinghoffer has authored a number of articles linking his Jewish commitment to
his conservative views on a variety of subjects, even introducing rabbinic
concepts into articles on mainstream culture, such as a critique of the
novelist Toni Morrison. Klinghoffer last year published The Lord Will Gather Me
In, an autobiographical account of his embrace of Orthodox Judaism.
Though it is unlikely that the visceral bond between the American Jewish
community and political liberalism will be dissolved any time soon, the
ultimate meaning of all these efforts is the intellectual legitimation of a
conservative politics among Jews-a development that may have a lasting impact
on the Jewish community in America. The political conservatism of Jewish
intellectuals can serve as an ideational bridge between Reform and Conservative
Jews, on the one hand, and their Orthodox brethren on the other. As the
arguments raised in books like Faith or Fear and A Return to Modesty gain
currency with the general reading public, Jews from the heterodox movements may
well gain a greater appreciation for the traditional Jewish way of life, while
Orthodox Jews may feel that they have potential allies and partners outside the
narrow circles that share their views on Jewish law and practice.
And political conservatism in America and other countries could benefit as
well. Despite its successes in winning the Cold War and reshaping the domestic
policy agenda on issues such as welfare reform, conservatism has not fared well
in the culture wars of recent years, especially in defending traditional family
values against a multiple-front assault from sexual liberationists stressing
individualism and from advocates of alternative lifestyles preaching equality.
The Jewish tradition has developed a set of down-to-earth teachings on these
issues which might resonate better with a broad public than the lofty moralism
sometimes associated with Christian-inspired writers, or the statistics-laden
arguments made by social scientists preaching restraint. Moreover, the image of
religious conservatism, which today is linked in the minds of most Americans
with devout Catholics and Evangelicals, would develop a more ecumenical
character, through the addition of Jewish intellectuals outspokenly offering up
their tradition's contribution.
Kenneth R. Weinstein is associate editor of Azure.
Mr. N
"demo<RAT" <R...@DNC.org> wrote in message
news:c9nnbr$fjl$3...@216.221.129.222...
> democracy is bad when the voters disagree with you and your ilk.
Looking forward to your decision to hate democracy on the morning of
November 3rd when President-elect Kerry gives his victory speech.
--
-Mr. N
-------------------------------------------
"I believe that the president's leadership in the actions taken in Iraq
demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience
in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish
the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers."
"The emperor has no clothes. When are people going to face the reality?
Pull this curtain back."
-Nancy Pelosi, American Patriot
Mr. N
"demo<RAT" <R...@DNC.org> wrote in message
> Neo Conservative
Neander-conservative.
Rico
>
>I'm not saying it is bad or good. Just looking for a useful definition.
Idiot in a new suit.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Ryd
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
peeance....@bayofgoats.org
On 3-Jun-2004, Charlie Wolf <charli...@noemail.com> wrote:
> >Anyone have a good definition for a neo-con?
> Another useless label that liberals use when they have nothing but
> lies and propoganda...
>
> Sorta like homo-phobe.
> Regards,
It's not a liberal label, Charlie. They call themselves Neoconservatives.
They publish books about Neoconservatism. They publish books with
"Neoconservatism" in the title. They often use "neocon" in their columns.
They are Neoconservatives. They have no problem with that name just as
Liberals have no problem with their label. That's what we call ourselves.
From now on, Charlie, you should have someone check your work before you
post. Or head on over to alt.sex.britney.naked for something a little less
challenging and more relevant to your life.
Eric
--
Say "President Kerry".
I know you can do it.
You'll have to. [quoting Mr. N]
Salad
> Anyone have a good definition for a neo-con?
>
> I'm not saying it is bad or good. Just looking for a useful definition.
A conservative that seeks world domination and the destruction of other
countries. Big into nation building. Usually Jewish. Would like to see
Arab nations flattened. Ready to start another war before the other war
is finished. Seeks out dull people to be their puppet.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ryd
gaffo
Imperialist Nazi..................think President Polk.
--
As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both
instances,
there is a twilight. And it is in such twilight that we all must be
aware of change in the air
-- however slight -lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.
Justice William O. Douglas, US Supreme Court (1939-75)
http://baltimorechronicle.com/041704reTreason.shtml
http://www.truthinaction.net/iraq/illegaljayne.htm
"But I believe in torture and I will torture you."
-An American soldier shares the joys of Democracy with
an Iraqi prisoner.
"My mother praises me for fighting the Americans. If we are killed,
our wives and mothers will rejoice that we died defending the
freedom of our country.
-Iraqi Mahdi fighter
"We were bleeding from 3 a.m. until sunrise, soon American soldiers came.
One of them kicked me to see if I was alive. I pretended I was dead
so he wouldn't kill me. The soldier was laughing, when Yousef cried,
the soldier said: "'No, stop,"
-Shihab, survivor of USSA bombing of Iraqi wedding.
"the absolute convergence of the neoconservatives with the Christian
Zionists
and the pro-Israel lobby, driving U.S. Mideast policy."
-Don Wagner, an evangelical South Carolina minister
"Bush, in Austin, criticized President Clinton's administration for
the Kosovo military action.'Victory means exit strategy, and it's important
for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is,' Bush said."
Houston Chronicle 4/9/99
"Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to
destabilize their country."
Washington, D.C., May 5, 2004
"The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem
of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along until there's a major
incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh my God, shouldn't we be organized
to deal with this?'"
- Paul Bremer, speaking to a McCormick Tribune Foundation conference
on terrorism in Wheaton, Ill. on Feb. 26, 2001.
"On Jan. 26, 1998, President Clinton received a letter imploring him to use
his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Hussein's regime
the "aim of American foreign policy" and to use military action because
"diplomacy is failing." Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged, they
would "offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor."
Signing the pledge were Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert
Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Richard L. Armitage, Jeffrey
Bergner,
Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, Peter W. Rodman,
William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, R. James Woolsey and Robert B. Zoellick,
Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Four years before 9/11, the neocons had
Baghdad on their minds."
-philip (usenet)
"I had better things to do in the 60s than fight in Vietnam,"
-Richard Cheney, Kerry critic.
"I hope they will understand that in order for this government to get up
and running
- to be effective - some of its sovereignty will have to be given
back, if I can put it that way,
or limited by them, It's sovereignty but [some] of that sovereignty they
are going to allow us to exercise
on their behalf and with their permission."
- Powell 4/27/04
"We're trying to explain how things are going, and they are going as they
are going," he said, adding: "Some things are going well and some things
obviously are not going well. You're going to have good days and bad days."
On the road to democracy, this "is one moment, and there will be other
moments. And there will be good moments and there will be less good
moments."
- Rumsfeld 4/6/04
"I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this
country's gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty's gift to
every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on
the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread
of freedom."
~ Bush the Crusader
RUSSERT: Are you prepared to lose?
BUSH: No, I'm not going to lose.
RUSSERT: If you did, what would you do?
BUSH: Well, I don't plan on losing. I've got a vision for what I want to
do for the country.
See, I know exactly where I want to lead.................And we got
changing times
here in America, too., 2/8/04
"And that's very important for, I think, the people to understand where
I'm coming from,
to know that this is a dangerous world. I wish it wasn't. I'm a war
president.
I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with
war on my mind.
- pResident of the United State of America, 2/8/04
"Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that
based on intelligence, that he has been very, very good at hiding
these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know
he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons.
And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, on "Meet the Press", 3/16/03
"I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the
Iraqis had nuclear weapons."
- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, 6/24/03
"I think in this case international law
stood in the way of doing the right thing (invading Iraq)."
- Richard Perle
"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with
respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project
conventional power against his neighbours."
- Colin Powell February 24 2001
"We have been successful for the last ten years in keeping
him from developing those weapons and we will continue to be successful."
"He threatens not the United States."
"But I also thought that we had pretty
much removed his stings and frankly for ten years we really have."
'But what is interesting is that with the regime that has been in place
for the past ten years, I think a pretty good job has been done of
keeping him from breaking out and suddenly showing up one day and saying
"look what I got." He hasn't been able to do that.'
- Colin Powell February 26 2001
gaffo
> "demo<RAT" <R...@DNC.org> wrote in message
> news:c9nn52$fjl$2...@216.221.129.222...
>
>
>>Neo Conservative
>
>
> Neander-conservative.
>
NeoNaziCon.
gaffo
ya - thats an accurate definition all right!
Steven Litvintchouk
ryd...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Anyone have a good definition for a neo-con?
>
How to Spot a Neo-Con
By Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas
Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons
believe:
1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as
intellectual.
2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing
to use force to do so.
3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means - that
hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they
strongly endorse it.
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run
should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have
the courage to deal with it.
10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
12. They believe in imperialism, if progressive in nature, is
appropriate.
13. They believe in using American might to force American ideals on
others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of
our country.
14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too
many.
15. They dislike and despise libertarians and traditional
conservatives (therefore, the same applies to all strict
constitutionalists.)
16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in
the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with
the Likud Party.
http://www.rense.com/general39/neocon.htm
-- Steven L.
Warren Stupidity
>Mr. N wrote:
>
>> "demo<RAT" <R...@DNC.org> wrote in message
>> news:c9nn52$fjl$2...@216.221.129.222...
>>
>>
>>>Neo Conservative
>>
>>
>> Neander-conservative.
>>
>
>NeoNaziCon.
Arrogant fool.
The Washington NeoClowns can't even get their clown
shoes on right, and there is no wrong way to do that.
==
Mark Roddy
"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event like a
new Pearl Harbor."
-- Project for a New American Century,
-- the neocon cabal's blueprint for world empire.
http://www.newamericancentury.org
Neil
"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:VvPvc.36953$zO3....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>
> ryd...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Anyone have a good definition for a neo-con?
> >
>
> How to Spot a Neo-Con
>
> By Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas
>
> Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons
> believe:
> 15. They dislike and despise libertarians and traditional
> conservatives (therefore, the same applies to all strict
> constitutionalists.)
Why then does Bush surround himself with them (or did he really)?
Dino
And these are the people in charge. Not a good sign. I think they do
this so that the liberals and moderates will again be thankful to have
actual conservatives in charge.
Posted by Rubber Dino
peeance....@bayofgoats.org
On 3-Jun-2004, "Neil" <para...@lykose.com> wrote:
> > 15. They dislike and despise libertarians and traditional
> > conservatives (therefore, the same applies to all strict
> > constitutionalists.)
> ...
>
> Why then does Bush surround himself with them (or did he really)?
He didn't pick them. THEY picked him. He is NOT a traditional conservative
by any stretch. But he's malleable and could be fit to their purposes.
gaffo
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 23:50:02 GMT, gaffo <ga...@usenet.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Mr. N wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"demo<RAT" <R...@DNC.org> wrote in message
>>>news:c9nn52$fjl$2...@216.221.129.222...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Neo Conservative
>>>
>>>
>>>Neander-conservative.
>>>
>>
>>NeoNaziCon.
>
>
> Arrogant fool.
>
>
>
> The Washington NeoClowns can't even get their clown
> shoes on right, and there is no wrong way to do that.
>
> ==
> Mark Roddy
Did I step on your clown shoes somewhere along the way Chump?
--
As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both
instances,
there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it
demo<RAT
demo<RAT
Mr. N
"demo<RAT" <R...@DNC.org> wrote in message
> not unless the RATS succeed in stealing the election this time.
It's not actually stealing if your guy gets the most votes - both popular
and electoral college. If polling can be given any credibility at all -
Bush is FAR behind.
bvoiced
OrionCA <ori...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Source...? Other than the voices in your head, I mean.
This newsgroup, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, internet
publications, newspapers, books, college level courses, magazines, and
the voices in YOUR head. That should just about cover it. All you need
to do is take the information in objectivly. Simple enough.
> --
> Randi Rhodes, Air America radio host, suggesting
> President Bush's assassination to a caller:
>
>
> R: "Yeah.. take him out and you know "Hail Mary, full
> of grace, God is with ou-" [Randi makes the sound of
> a blast] ... Works for me."
>
> TITLE 18 Sec. 871. - Threats against President and successors to the
> Presidency
>
>
> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for
> conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any
> post office or by any letter carrier any letter,
> paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing
> any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to
> inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United
> States, the President-elect, the Vice President or
> other officer next in the order of succession to
> the office of President of the United States, or
> the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully
> otherwise makes any such threat against the President,
> President-elect, Vice President or other officer next
> in the order of succession to the office of President,
> or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this
> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
>
JimK
wrote:
>Anyone have a good definition for a neo-con?
>
>I'm not saying it is bad or good. Just looking for a useful definition.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Ryd
Leo Strauss = NEO-CON's
Leo Strauss: A Founding Father of the Neo-Con Ideology
Leo Strauss has long been a cult figure within the North American
academy. And even though he had a profound antipathy to both
liberalism and democracy, his disciples have gone to great lengths to
conceal the fact. And for the most part they have succeeded
http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/112.html
The trouble with the Straussians is that they are compulsive liars.
But it is not altogether their fault. Strauss was very pre-occupied
with secrecy because he was convinced that the truth is too harsh for
any society to bear; and that the truth-bearers are likely to be
persecuted by society - specially a liberal society - because liberal
democracy is about as far as one can get from the truth as Strauss
understood it.
http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/112.html
Strauss's disciples have inherited a superiority complex as well as a
persecution complex. They are convinced that they are the superior few
who know the truth and are entitled to rule. But they are afraid to
speak the truth openly, lest they are persecuted by the vulgar many
who do not wish to be ruled by them.
http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/112.html
Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
It's hardly surprising then why Strauss is so popular in an
administration obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to
matters of foreign policy. Not only did Strauss have few qualms about
using deception in politics, he saw it as a necessity.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15935
While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed
that societies should be hierarchical – divided between an elite who
should lead, and the masses who should follow. But unlike fellow
elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of
these leaders.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15935
Strauss believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize
there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the
right of the superior to rule over the inferior."
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15935
This dichotomy requires "perpetual deception" between the rulers and
the ruled, according to Drury. Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst
says,"The people are told what they need to know and no more." While
the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth,
Strauss thought, the masses could not cope.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15935
He also argued that Platonic truth is too hard for people to bear, and
that the classical appeal to "virtue" as the object of human endeavor
is unattainable. Hence it has been necessary to tell lies to people
about the nature of political reality. An elite recognizes the truth,
however, and keeps it to itself. This gives it insight, and implicitly
power that others do not possess. This obviously is an important
element in Strauss's appeal to America's neoconservatives.
http://www.iht.com/articles/96307.htm
The ostensibly hidden truth is that expediency works; there is no
certain God to punish wrongdoing; and virtue is unattainable by most
people. Machiavelli was right. There is a natural hierarchy of humans,
and rulers must restrict free inquiry and exploit the mediocrity and
vice of ordinary people so as to keep society in order.
http://www.iht.com/articles/96307.htm
Despite its wild implausibility, the scenario is in one important
respect true. And that has to do with the influence of Leo Strauss on
a generation of neoconservative thinkers, some of whom are active in
our politics (and some of whom can even be found writing in these
pages).
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/717acusr.asp
The new elite, whose driving force is the pursuit of power, believe
they have a right to impose their rule by way of deceit. As disciples
of Machiavelli, they consider themselves to be free from the
constraints of moral absolutes. Their philosophy also encourages them
to promote religious faith among the people, even though they
themselves are not true believers.
http://tinyurl.com/365pp
"The ancient philosophers whom Strauss most cherished believed that
the unwashed masses were not fit for either truth or liberty, and that
giving them these sublime treasures would be like throwing pearls
before swine."
http://www.u-r-next.com/Why%20Bushites%20Lie.htm
JimK
President George W. Bush’s increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood
swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides
privately express growing concern over their leader’s state of mind.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4636.shtml
Lars Eighner
<1kk0c0d6fq25p5l8u...@4ax.com>,
the lovely and talented JimK
broadcast on alt.politics:
Haven't they ever seen a drunk on a tear before?
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects,
I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them"
-- Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman
Warren Stupidity
>Warren Stupidity wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 23:50:02 GMT, gaffo <ga...@usenet.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mr. N wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"demo<RAT" <R...@DNC.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:c9nn52$fjl$2...@216.221.129.222...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Neo Conservative
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Neander-conservative.
>>>>
>>>
>>>NeoNaziCon.
>>
>>
>> Arrogant fool.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Washington NeoClowns can't even get their clown
>> shoes on right, and there is no wrong way to do that.
>>
>> ==
>> Mark Roddy
>
>Did I step on your clown shoes somewhere along the way Chump?
No - the definition of a neocon is "arrogant fool". Sorry for the
confusion.
The Washington NeoClowns can't even get their clown
shoes on right, and there is no wrong way to do that.
==
Mark Roddy
"Further, the process of transformation,
Ra
abide disloyalty. I want your resignation and I want it now."
That was unwise.
Tenet will now be free to explain how he has been pleading with the President
to take Al Qaeda seriously, since before 9/11.. and how he was ignored by GWB.
--
best regards,
Ra
----------------------------------------------------
http://surfpick.com
Lignum Vitae
----------------------------------------------------
FSIA
Gee whiz! After years of political smear campaigns the Bush people have
run against others, you think some of it is coming back to haunt them?
If you can't take the heat.....
peeance....@bayofgoats.org
Given that Bush is at best a recovering alcoholic, the story seems
plausible, but something about it just doesn't ring true. The quotes don't
sound quite real and it just has a "wishful thinking" feel to it.
Anybody know anything about the credibility of Capitol Hill Blue? I never
heard of them. I can't get much feel for who they are, but this article and
the others posted make it look like Newsmax for Democrats.
Something's fishy. Anyone know what?
idleeric
<peeance....@bayofgoats.org> wrote in message
news:10c19sp...@corp.supernews.com...
idleeric --> Yeah ... the fish rots from the head.
"Because your life, liberty, & property are not safe when Congress are in
session."
check out the other stories ... hardly a left-wing blog.
Looks more like a bunch of hardened D.C. stringers chasing stories before
they break.
Time will tell ... the noose is tightening ... the chimp is starting to look
for outside lawyers. Good sign.
Rico
>In our last episode,
><1kk0c0d6fq25p5l8u...@4ax.com>,
>the lovely and talented JimK
>broadcast on alt.politics:
>
>>
>> President George W. Bush’s increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood
>> swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides
>> privately express growing concern over their leader’s state of mind.
>> http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4636.shtml
>
>Haven't they ever seen a drunk on a tear before?
Korsicov syndrome.
>
>
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
McGuyver
> President George W. Bush?s increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood
> swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides
> http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4636.shtml
Oh, that's juicy! Interesting times we live in.
Round and round he goes. Where he stops nobody knows!
Economic Democracy
Bush Leagues
Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Jun 4, 2004, 06:15
President George W. Bush's increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood
swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides
privately express growing concern over their leader's state of mind.
In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President
goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against
the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as "enemies of the
state."
Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge,
increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a
public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home.
"It reminds me of the Nixon days," says a longtime GOP political
consultant with contacts in the White House. "Everybody is an enemy;
everybody is out to get him. That's the mood over there."
In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing
to talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has
emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be "God's will"
and then tells aides to "fuck over" anyone they consider to be an
opponent of the administration.
"We're at war, there's no doubt about it. What I don't know anymore is
just who the enemy might be," says one troubled White House aide. "We
seem to spend more time trying to destroy John Kerry than al Qaeda and
our enemies list just keeps growing and growing."
Aides say the President gets "hung up on minor details," micromanaging
to the extreme while ignoring the bigger picture. He will spend hours
personally reviewing and approving every attack ad against his
Democratic opponent and then kiss off a meeting on economic issues.
"This is what is killing us on Iraq," one aide says. "We lost focus.
The President got hung up on the weapons of mass destruction and an
unproven link to al Qaeda. We could have found other justifiable
reasons for the war but the President insisted the focus stay on those
two, tenuous items."
Aides who raise questions quickly find themselves shut out of access
to the President or other top advisors. Among top officials, Bush's
inner circle is shrinking. Secretary of State Colin Powell has fallen
out of favor because of his growing doubts about the administration's
war against Iraq.
The President's abrupt dismissal of CIA Directory George Tenet
Wednesday night is, aides say, an example of how he works.
"Tenet wanted to quit last year but the President got his back up and
wouldn't hear of it," says an aide. "That would have been the
opportune time to make a change, not in the middle of an election
campaign but when the director challenged the President during the
meeting Wednesday, the President cut him off by saying 'that's it
George. I cannot abide disloyalty. I want your resignation and I want
it now."
Tenet was allowed to resign "voluntarily" and Bush informed his
shocked staff of the decision Thursday morning. One aide says the
President actually described the decision as "God's will."
God may also be the reason Attorney General John Ashcroft, the
administration's lightning rod because of his questionable actions
that critics argue threatens freedoms granted by the Constitution,
remains part of the power elite. West Wing staffers call Bush and
Ashcroft "the Blues Brothers" because "they're on a mission from God."
"The Attorney General is tight with the President because of
religion," says one aide. "They both believe any action is justifiable
in the name of God."
But the President who says he rules at the behest of God can also
tongue-lash those he perceives as disloyal, calling them "fucking
assholes" in front of other staff, berating one cabinet official in
front of others and labeling anyone who disagrees with him
"unpatriotic" or "anti-American."
"The mood here is that we're under siege, there's no doubt about it,"
says one troubled aide who admits he is looking for work elsewhere.
"In this administration, you don't have to wear a turban or speak
Farsi to be an enemy of the United States. All you have to do is
disagree with the President."
The White House did not respond to requests for comment on the record.
© Copyright 2004 Capitol Hill Blue
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4636.shtml
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_4636.shtml
= = = =
STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA
IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON?
= = = =
Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org
More news: UseNet's misc.activism.progressive (moderated)
= = = =
Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email
For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace)
And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general)
** ANTI-SPAM EMAIL NOTE: For email "info" and "map" don't work. Email
instead
** to m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes) at economicdemocracy.org
free
gaffo
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 02:53:17 GMT, gaffo <ga...@usenet.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Warren Stupidity wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 23:50:02 GMT, gaffo <ga...@usenet.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mr. N wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"demo<RAT" <R...@DNC.org> wrote in message
>>>>>news:c9nn52$fjl$2...@216.221.129.222...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Neo Conservative
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Neander-conservative.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>NeoNaziCon.
>>>
>>>
>>>Arrogant fool.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The Washington NeoClowns can't even get their clown
>>>shoes on right, and there is no wrong way to do that.
>>>
>>>==
>>>Mark Roddy
>>
>>Did I step on your clown shoes somewhere along the way Chump?
>
>
> No - the definition of a neocon is "arrogant fool". Sorry for the
> confusion.
thank you for the clearification!
true - I'm a bit arrogant, and a fool at times too.
we can all strive for improvement ;-)...........;-/................;-(.
;-).
LawsonE
"OrionCA" <ori...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2ea2c0p1u04k9udeu...@4ax.com...
>
> >Who, or what, is Capitol Hill Blue?
> >Musings, brain drain and rantings started by a grouchy old
ex-newspaperman named Doug Thompson in October 1994. Thompson left us to
pursue other things but some guy named McTavish walked in one day and took
over so Blue lives on. That makes us the oldest surviving news site on the
Internet. But dont' take our word for it. Go to Google and see if you can
find anything older. Bet ya can't.
> >
> >Sometimes we are joined, more or less, by a ragtag cast of current and
ex-newspaper men and women who wander in and out of here like homeless
children. Some still work for news organizations and use Capitol Hill Blue
as an outlet for the stories their outfits don't have the guts to publish.
Others are retired, but can't give up the Muse.
> >
> >Nobody here draws a salary. We couldn't afford to pay salaries anyway.
All money, if we ever get around to making any, will go back into the
product. Or maybe we'll send out for pizza. But it couldn't be any bigger
than a medium.
>
> So it's just a blog w/no specific credibility. Nice try.
>
The byline of that specific article is Doug Thompson. Either it's a generic
byline for op-eds on the web-site, or he dropped by to make a specific
point. If its the former, then you are correct; if its the latter, then it's
Doug Thomson's credibility, which may or may not be worth paying attention
to (at least he's been known to admit to being conned, which is something, I
guess):
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=19&num=2529
Tom Betz
news:2ea2c0p1u04k9udeu...@4ax.com:
>
> R: "Yeah.. take him out and you know "Hail Mary, full
> of grace, God is with ou-" [Randi makes the sound of
> a blast] ... Works for me."
Typical reich-wing phony quote, made so by the creative omission of
context.
Here's a transcript of the segment.
Caller: One more question: Why don't the American people see that the
entire Bush Family are crooks?
Randi: Well that would--
C: Neil, Jeb, George Senior Iran Contra, and and and now Dopey
R: And what was involved.. what do they have in common? All of these
things?
C: It's all money.
R: They all stole. They stole from banks. They stole from Pakistani banks;
they stole from American banks; they stole from small banks, big banks,
neighborhood banks. They stole from MY bank. My bank was uh this Savings
and Loan of Broward--
C: Yup
R: --and Jeb took care of that bank. Jeb actually bought a building that
was uh you know took a mortgage on the building of four million dollars and
then just you know said he couldnt pay the.. the the the uh the note you
know the mortgage and the bank totally went belly up and the tax payers had
to bail out that bank too. I mean--
C: They're thieves; they're the Corleones and as you said--
R: They ARE the Corelones!
C: --and now we're down to Fredo.
R: Well I gotta find... Well right, we've got the Fredo of the family is
the President of the United States! So uh why doesnt his father take him,
or his brother, one of em, take him out for a little uh.. fishing
C: Yeah--
R: You know
C: --on a row boat
R: Yeah and let him say some Hail Marys
C: I'll bet Bush does have a little dingy
R: Yeah.. take him out and you know "Hail Mary, full of grace, God is with
you-" [Randi makes the sound of a blast] ... Works for me.
C: Absolutely, thank you--
R: Thank you... I don't think you can say that anymore. I really don't. You
will see. No Godfather references when it comes to the Bush family. Nope!
[ end transcript ]
Now, unless you read this as Randi Rhodes commanding Jeb or Neil or GHW to
take Dubya out in a dinghy and shoot him, and believe that it might
actually cause them to do so, there's no way that this conversation is
advocacy for the killing of a President.
--
"I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they
charitably dispose of anything when blood is their argument? Now, if these
men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them
to it; who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection." - W.S.
Foxtrot
>Quoth OrionCA <ori...@earthlink.net>
>> R: "Yeah.. take him out and you know "Hail Mary, full
>> of grace, God is with ou-" [Randi makes the sound of
>> a blast] ... Works for me."
>
>Typical reich-wing phony quote, made so by the creative omission of
>context.
>C: I'll bet Bush does have a little dingy
>
>R: Yeah.. take him out and you know "Hail Mary, full of grace, God is with
>you-" [Randi makes the sound of a blast] ... Works for me.
>
>C: Absolutely, thank you--
Exactly how does that excuse her hate-filled remark?
Her and the caller did a lot of whining and Bush bashing
leading up to it, but it was still an inexcusably shitty thing
to say.
Butts is projecting his own hostility by referring to his
opponents as "Reich Wing".
>Now, unless you read this as Randi Rhodes commanding Jeb or Neil or GHW to
>take Dubya out in a dinghy and shoot him, and believe that it might
>actually cause them to do so, there's no way that this conversation is
>advocacy for the killing of a President.
The Bush bashers go to great lengths to rationalize their
hatred for him.
peeance....@bayofgoats.org
On 4-Jun-2004, OrionCA <ori...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> So it's just a blog w/no specific credibility. Nice try.
When I saw the George-Bush-crazy-erratic-behavior story, it just didn't ring
true to me. Oh, the craze erratic behavior from a recovering drunk and drug
abuser is certainly plausible, but it could still be a fake story of the
Newsmax and checkout stand tabloid variety.
The only thing to do is watch their stories, see how many of them pan out
and act accordingly. Credibility comes from being honest. That's why Bush
has none anymore. He's just not honest and that affects his credibility when
he is forthcoming.
ausstu
> swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides
> http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4636.shtml
Scary stuff reminiscent of the Nixon administration near its collapse.
Interesting to note how Bush has alot in common with Bin Laden and
the Blues Brothers who all believe they are on a mission from God.
Chuck
Democrats so much. Sleazy lies.
"Economic Democracy" <in...@economicdemocracy.org> wrote in message
news:59d9354.04060...@posting.google.com...
Rico
>
>"OrionCA" <ori...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:2ea2c0p1u04k9udeu...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 10:45:08 GMT, JimK <ji...@attbii.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >President George W. Bush's increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood
>> >swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides
>> >privately express growing concern over their leader's state of mind.
>> >http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4636.shtml
>>
>> From CHB's FAQ:
>>
>> >Who, or what, is Capitol Hill Blue?
>> >Musings, brain drain and rantings started by a grouchy old
>ex-newspaperman named Doug Thompson in October 1994. Thompson left us to
>pursue other things but some guy named McTavish walked in one day and took
>over so Blue lives on. That makes us the oldest surviving news site on the
>Internet. But dont' take our word for it. Go to Google and see if you can
>find anything older. Bet ya can't.
Not arguing with you, but would this pre-date Pathfinder.com?
>> >
>> >Sometimes we are joined, more or less, by a ragtag cast of current and
>ex-newspaper men and women who wander in and out of here like homeless
>children. Some still work for news organizations and use Capitol Hill Blue
>as an outlet for the stories their outfits don't have the guts to publish.
>Others are retired, but can't give up the Muse.
>> >
>> >Nobody here draws a salary. We couldn't afford to pay salaries anyway.
>All money, if we ever get around to making any, will go back into the
>product. Or maybe we'll send out for pizza. But it couldn't be any bigger
>than a medium.
>>
>> So it's just a blog w/no specific credibility. Nice try.
>>
>
>The byline of that specific article is Doug Thompson. Either it's a generic
>byline for op-eds on the web-site, or he dropped by to make a specific
>point. If its the former, then you are correct; if its the latter, then it's
>Doug Thomson's credibility, which may or may not be worth paying attention
>to (at least he's been known to admit to being conned, which is something, I
>guess):
>
>http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=19&num=2529
>
>
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
Rico
It appears the Secret Service tends to agree with you. I know this because
after bringing her to my attention in recent weeks, I listened to her show
last Friday while stuck in traffic. On a scale of 1 to 10, I give that one
show about a 6.5. I'm sure on other days she is better.
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
Rico
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
gaffo
> 12. They believe in imperialism, if progressive in nature, is
> appropriate.
all imperialism is repressive in nature - no exceptions.
> 15. They dislike and despise libertarians and traditional
> conservatives (therefore, the same applies to all strict
> constitutionalists.)
true - listen to the man. Ron Paul is "The Man" - I voted for him for
President.
> -- Steven L.
Ron Paul is correct!!!!!!!!!!! now Steve, Ron hates Nazis and yet you
post his definition of what a Nazi is!!!
Surely you do not respect Ron!! - for you too are a Nazi.
What gives?
gaffo
> On 3-Jun-2004, "Neil" <para...@lykose.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>15. They dislike and despise libertarians and traditional
>>>conservatives (therefore, the same applies to all strict
>>>constitutionalists.)
>>
>>...
>>
>>Why then does Bush surround himself with them (or did he really)?
>
>
> He didn't pick them. THEY picked him. He is NOT a traditional conservative
> by any stretch. But he's malleable and could be fit to their purposes.
>
> Eric
>
of course!
puppet.
Cheney is the Pres anyway and Cheney IS a Neocon.
nuff said.
Wake the fuck up.............liberty is a stake this time...........
The Truth Shall Set You Free
Publisher
Capitol Hill Blue
6-4-4
President George W. Bush's increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood
swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides
privately express growing concern over their leader's state of mind.
Scott Marquardt
> Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides
> By Doug Thompson
> Publisher
> Capitol Hill Blue
> 6-4-4
.....
> © Copyright 2004 Capitol Hill Blue
>
> http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4636.shtml
LOL
This from a site with a banner ad that links to "hotbar."
There's credibility for you.
--
Scott
Almost summer! http://snipurl.com/trebuchet
Avanti_Ken
> Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides
> By Doug Thompson
This guy is so full of it my eyeball's turned brown while reading his
dribble.
Don't waist your time. It"s not worth the effort it takes to click the
mouse.
Avanti_Ken
Rich Travsky
> >swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides
> >privately express growing concern over their leader’s state of mind.
>
> From CHB's FAQ:
>
> >Who, or what, is Capitol Hill Blue?
> >Musings, brain drain and rantings started by a grouchy old ex-newspaperman named Doug Thompson in October 1994. Thompson left us to pursue other things but some guy named McTavish walked in one day and took over so Blue lives on. That makes us the oldest surviving news site on the Internet. But dont' take our word for it. Go to Google and see if you can find anything older. Bet ya can't.
> >
> >
> >Nobody here draws a salary. We couldn't afford to pay salaries anyway. All money, if we ever get around to making any, will go back into the product. Or maybe we'll send out for pizza. But it couldn't be any bigger than a medium.
>
> So it's just a blog w/no specific credibility. Nice try.
Reading comprehension problems? It ain't a blog. Not even a nice try.
RT
LawsonE
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:40C3F443...@hotMOVEmail.com...
Its a rumormill site. Usually he doesn't have anything original to say.
Sometimes he comes up with something really controversial. Usually, he's
wrong when he does that, but that doesn't seem to stop him. One gets the
impression that both sides in DC use him to pass along really silly rumors.
Joe Myers
> >Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides
> >By Doug Thompson
> >Publisher
> >Capitol Hill Blue
>
> Capitol Hill Blue is a blog run by a couple of former newspaper men.
> They have no sources in the White house and the website has no more
> credibility than any other blog.
And *your* sources in the White House are...?
I mean, who'd expect a couple of newspaper men to have more credibility than
"OrionCA?"
wbarwell
Ex-newsmen with sources in Washington are 1000 times
more credible than some right winged dork on some usenet group.
Bush is whacko.
--
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun
in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to
Canada. So I chose to better myself and learn to fly airplanes."
- George W. Bush May 1984 to the Houston Chronicle
Cheerful Charlie
Marcel
"The Truth Shall Set You Free" <sac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1b161eb0.04060...@posting.google.com...
Chimp Boy
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Jun 4, 2004, 06:15
© Copyright 2004 by Capitol Hill Blue
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4636.shtml
--
Impeachment was created for people like G.W Bush
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/
Sid See
tongue-lash those he perceives as disloyal, calling them "fucking assholes"
in front of other staff, berating one cabinet official in front of others
and labeling anyone who disagrees with him "unpatriotic" or "anti-American."
"The mood here is that we're under siege, there's no doubt about it," says
one troubled aide who admits he is looking for work elsewhere. "In this
administration, you don't have to wear a turban or speak Farsi to be an
enemy of the United States. All you have to do is disagree with the
President."
The White House did not respond to requests for comment on the record.
© Copyright 2004 Capitol Hill Blue
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/